Unearthed Arcana UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?

[Azzy]

I like these style of feats, personally. It gives you a taste of another class without the commitment of multicassing—which I view as a Good Thing™.

Though multiclassing has been an available option in all the campaigns my group has played since 5e was released, nobody has chosen to do so. A few people have contemplated it, but nothing ever came of it.

In retrospect, I would have much preferred if 5e had gone with AD&D-style multiclassing instead of the 3e-style but that ship has sailed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

but that ship has sailed.

And, unfortunately, sunken by now...

 

[Mr Fixit]

In retrospect, I would have much preferred if 5e had gone with AD&D-style multiclassing instead of the 3e-style but that ship has sailed.

I love 2E -- first edition I played -- but multiclassing there was horrendously broken.

 

[Azzy]

All this time I thought people were mis typing human.

Sigh, sometimes I am slow.

Yeah, I did that at first, too.

 

[Azzy]

I think the Barbarian, Monk and Paladin are really the ones without any feat representation. Magic Initiate can shoulder a lot of MC flavor (same with Ritual Caster).

Unarmored Defence Feat

There's always the option to combine Monk and Barbarian in an unarmored defense feat that lets you do the CON or WIS to AC (based on what stat you bump?)

A feat that gives Unarmored defense, and +5 speed would work as both a Monk and Barbarian feat, tbh.

+1 dex, Str, or con?

I was thinking it would be +1 CON or +1 WIS and let you pick which one to add to your unarmored AC. Of course, WIS would be less popular...

I do like the idea of a feat that gives you either 1 CON or +1 WIS, gives you unarmored defence (using the ability score you chose), and +5 ft. movement. I don't know, but the last may make it too good.

Monk Feat

But for Monk I could see you getting 2 ki points and the ability to use Dash, Disengage or Dodge as a bonus action by spending them. It would, in turn, give more Ki to the Monk. Maybe throw in an extra 5 feet of movement?

The Monk one [...] addtion to the WIS to AC and speed gives you +2 dmg to your unarmed attacks? If you're not a monk this gives you a stable 3 dmg when punching, but as a Monk it's a nice boost?

What if it gave you an unarmed damage die, and upgrades you unarmed damage die or natural weapon damage die if you already have one?

I guess... but it'd be easier if there was an established hierarchy, otherwise you'll have to explain what it means to 'go up 1 dice size' with probably listing all the upgrade possible like...

"Your unarmed strikes not inflict d4 damage, or d6 if it already inflicts d4, d8 if it already inflicts d6," and so forth and so on until d12 instead of d10.

Personally, I'd go witha feat that gives you +1 Wis, 1d6 unarmed strike damage, +2 ki points that allow you to increase your unarmed strike damage by one die size (as described above) and the choice of one of the following ki features: Flurry of Blows, Patient Defence, or Step of the Wind.

Barbarian Feat

For Barbarian you could even include 'durable' as a Barb featsince it boosts HP But I think something that improves Crits is probably the best bet, as you say. Or maybe a way to generate Temp HP on yourself? It would sorta simulate the damage reduction of Rage and stack with the Barbarian themselves to make them more solid?

Maybe a feat that gives you +1 Str, gives a rage once or twice per day with all the requirements and bonuses of a regular rage. Barbarians would benefit from extra rages and +1 Str.

Paladin Feat

Paladin, I think a generic Channel Divinity would be good. Gives you an extra use that works for both Paladin and Cleric, and the option to spend your Channel Divinity on... I dunno, a 1 turn buff to your AC or something like that? Something that evokes the heavy plate armor of a paladin?

While I think that a feat that gives you Channel Divinity would be awesome, I think that a pally feat should instead give you a +1 Cha and the choice of either the searing smite or wrathful smite spell (1/day), and allow you to perform a Divine Smite ( for +2d8 damage) instead of casting the spell.

Channel Divinity Feat
I think that the biggest obsacle to creating such a feat is that the only example of Channel Divinity that isn't linked to a subclass is Turn Undead.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think that the biggest obsacle to creating such a feat is that the only example of Channel Divinity that isn't linked to a subclass is Turn Undead.

They could make a different one, so the feat is useful to clerics.

 

[Azzy]

I love 2E -- first edition I played -- but multiclassing there was horrendously broken.

It wasn't designed well as it just threw things on top of each other. However, if it was designed from the ground up to just take certain features of each class or such them I'm sure that it could be done in a way that didn't break things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It wasn't designed well as it just threw things on top of each other. However, if it was designed from the ground up to just take certain features of each class or such them I'm sure that it could be done in a way that didn't break things.

See; 4e Hybrid Multiclassing.

 

[Weiley31]

Do you remove the +1 ASI a lot of feat give? Otherwise, a feat and ASI +1 seems a bit strong.

Technically, doing it that way is basically taking the +2 ASI as per normal in those cases, but ya also gaining a feat too!

Hmmm...I like how that option sounds alot. Unless you rolled you stats super well, don't see how much issues it would cause.

Heck, I'm all for making all the feats in 5E be half feats technically.

 

[BlivetWidget]

A little bit tangential to the direction this thread went off in, but regarding some of the comments at the top of the thread, I think one of the angles to consider is the user accessibility and game design sides. If we're discussing significant rules changes, I'm assuming a theoretical 6E or 5.5E because you probably can't maintain backwards compatibility with this kind of fundamental change.

Whatever it ends up being, we know that one of the ideas on the table is removing bonus actions. It's not that bonus actions are particularly bad in theory, most of them are fine, but they have caused the game designers no end of headache and have caused a lot of rules confusion among players (just have a look through Crawford's twitter feed to see the number of questions about bonus actions, and the mental gymnastics he goes through to explain what actions are allowed and in what order - and yes, sometimes the answers change with time).

Similarly, we know from various rounds of Unearthed Arcana that one of the major hurdles they face in designing new classes/subclasses is pinning down the multiclass behavior. (There are also no end of questions online about multiclassing - particularly regarding spells and spell slots). A significant issue is that in 5E, there is explicitly no attempt to balance classes at any given level (rather, the stated goal is to balance them over the array of levels). Classes have totally different growth rates, even within the same class (for example, various Wizards subclasses: the Evocation wizard gets their best ability at level 2, the Transmutation wizard gets their worst ability at level 2).

So, whether or not anyone likes multiclassing, we know that in its current iteration, multiclassing causes the game designers problems and we know that it is a source of confusion for players. In this light, and given the explicit goal of "appealing to the masses" it would not particularly surprise me if the game designers left it out of the next iteration. To me, feats seem like a decent alternative worth testing out because they are much simpler to tack on to a character than requiring detailed knowledge of multiple classes on top of special rules on how to combine them (in my experience, a lot of people don't fully understand their own class even on a single class build).